Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Golly Gosh!  You guys are as feisty as ever.  I must apologise again for inviting Forrest here in the first place as it's only served to cause much negativity it seems.

 

Hi BC.  I hope all is well with you and your family. I miss seeing your regular postings here but I usually only look in this science vs. religion sub-Forum so you might be posting outside this subforum.

 

My apology for missing your original PM when I joined this forum now more that 2 years ago. I never knew of it. At that time, and to this day, I have never read a PM message by anyone to me in this forum. I didn't think to look for them, and still haven't seen any in this forum and don't know where to find them. I will now look to see where such PM's may be found   . So I missed your nice original message and invitation that you said you sent me.

 

I also want to thank you for your kindness in originally "defending" me against childlike verbal attacks in this forum. Why some people are motivated to first change the topic of the thread and subsequently to be nasty and rude, I confess, is somewhat of a mystery to me. This thread is a prime example.  I try and stay on topic but others like to change the subject, attack and ridicule anyone suggesting possible problems with mainstream theory. Their defense of mainstream science seems similar to those defending a religious belief IMO.

 

As you may have read, BAA has accused me of lying. When asking him what he was talking about he came up with the most ridiculous, almost hilarious examples going back two years or more.  Only he knows why he is compelled to accuse me and probably others. At first I thought he was imagining it, but the examples he presented were so ridiculous that I now believe that false accusations and ridicule by BAA and others, might indicate psychological problems. I believe he is smart enough so this is the only conclusion that I am left with.

 

Anyway BC, glad to see your postings again, and best regards for the future,  sincerely Forrest.

 

 

The above scenario described by Pantheory is impossible.

 

The PM system only works between registered members of Ex-Christian.net.

 

It cannot be used to send messages outside of this forum, nor between a member and a non-member.

 

Therefore, to receive a PM from BlackCat, Pantheory would have already have to have been a member.

 

And she would have had to have known that he was already a member.

.

.

.

So why on earth did she send him a message inviting him to become a member if she already knew he was one? 

 

Posted Today, 09:54 AM

Golly Gosh!  You guys are as feisty as ever.  I must apologise again for inviting Forrest here in the first place as it's only served to cause much negativity it seems.

 

.

.

.

Anybody smell something rotten in the state of Pantheory?

[TheOutsider]

... Okay, while I don't think pantheory has a particularly sound scientific footing, I'm not entirely convinced he was lying about his reasons for joining.

 

according to BlackCat's post mentioning that she sent him an email roughly on the 18th-19th of February 2013, he joined the forums on the 14th, 4-5 days before the email, so there might be some mistake. Unless BlackCat didn't mean yesterday literally?

 

Page #3 post #43

[bornagainathiest]

... Okay, while I don't think pantheory has a particularly sound scientific footing, I'm not entirely convinced he was lying about his reasons for joining.

 

according to BlackCat's post mentioning that she sent him an email roughly on the 18th-19th of February 2013, he joined the forums on the 14th, 4-5 days before the email, so there might be some mistake. Unless BlackCat didn't mean yesterday literally?

 

Page #3 post #43

 

Please see my earlier post, Outsider.

 

Then ask yourself why BlackCat would have invited Pantheory to become a member via Private Messaging, as Pantheory claims.

 

To do that she must have known he was already a member.

 

So why would she invite him to become a member if the only way she could PM him was if he was already a member?

 

Doesn't add up.

[TheOutsider]

 

... Okay, while I don't think pantheory has a particularly sound scientific footing, I'm not entirely convinced he was lying about his reasons for joining.

 

according to BlackCat's post mentioning that she sent him an email roughly on the 18th-19th of February 2013, he joined the forums on the 14th, 4-5 days before the email, so there might be some mistake. Unless BlackCat didn't mean yesterday literally?

 

Page #3 post #43

 

Please see my earlier post, Outsider.

 

Then ask yourself why BlackCat would have invited Pantheory to become a member via Private Messaging, as Pantheory claims.

 

To do that she must have known he was already a member.

 

So why would she invite him to become a member if the only way she could PM him was if he was already a member?

 

Doesn't add up.

 

Yes, the whole PM thing doesn't make sense, but that can be chalked up to a confusion in terms. I'm just saying, the timeline as it currently appears doesn't add up either.

 

[Edit to add:]  It appears he signed up before BlackCat sent the email, though if she didn't mean "yesterday" literally in that post, then it could be back to him lying about it.

 

It's something I noticed and it seems to be relevant to the issue.

[sdelsolray]

 

... Okay, while I don't think pantheory has a particularly sound scientific footing, I'm not entirely convinced he was lying about his reasons for joining.

 

according to BlackCat's post mentioning that she sent him an email roughly on the 18th-19th of February 2013, he joined the forums on the 14th, 4-5 days before the email, so there might be some mistake. Unless BlackCat didn't mean yesterday literally?

 

Page #3 post #43

 

Please see my earlier post, Outsider.

 

Then ask yourself why BlackCat would have invited Pantheory to become a member via Private Messaging, as Pantheory claims.

 

To do that she must have known he was already a member.

 

So why would she invite him to become a member if the only way she could PM him was if he was already a member?

 

Doesn't add up.

 

Perhaps it is a lie, a backpeddle, a spin, plausible deniability, or a host of other things.

[pantheory]

 

 

... Okay, while I don't think pantheory has a particularly sound scientific footing, I'm not entirely convinced he was lying about his reasons for joining.

 

according to BlackCat's post mentioning that she sent him an email roughly on the 18th-19th of February 2013, he joined the forums on the 14th, 4-5 days before the email, so there might be some mistake. Unless BlackCat didn't mean yesterday literally?

 

Page #3 post #43

 

Please see my earlier post, Outsider.

 

Then ask yourself why BlackCat would have invited Pantheory to become a member via Private Messaging, as Pantheory claims.

 

To do that she must have known he was already a member.

 

So why would she invite him to become a member if the only way she could PM him was if he was already a member?

 

Doesn't add up.

 

Yes, the whole PM thing doesn't make sense, but that can be chalked up to a confusion in terms. I'm just saying, the timeline as it currently appears doesn't add up either.

 

[Edit to add:]  It appears he signed up before BlackCat sent the email, though if she didn't mean "yesterday" literally in that post, then it could be back to him lying about it.

 

It's something I noticed and it seems to be relevant to the issue.

 

 

Both Black Cat and BAA called it an invitation. Since I never got it I didn't know of it, or whether it existed or not. But if Black Cat says she sent me a PM or other invitation then you can be certain that it happened. Yes, I was already a member at the time. I was just introducing myself I think in the introduction forum. What is the importance of this now anyway? especially in this thread? Why bring up such a ridiculous accusation now from more than 2 years ago? This is BAA's big example of a lie? what a joke! -- accusing me of being a liar in many postings without mentioning details of what lie(s) he imagined (more than 2 years ago?). Pathological behavior? In any case I expect psychological problems -- but suggest that such people should not accuse others, period, especially of such ridiculous things, thereby exposing their own problems.

[BlackCat]

Hi Forrest,

 

Thank you for your kind welcome back.

 

Just to clarify guys- I've forwarded the email I sent to Forrest way back on the 19th of February 2013 to BAA, so as to verify that it was the 19th, which is AFTER Forrest joined this forum.  Coincidences do happen it seems!  Forrest did not reply to that email.  Forrest, the email address I used to invite you here (I didn't know you were already a member)  is:  forrest_forrest@ netzero.net. 

[ContraBardus]

If we apply the law of Parsimony, which Pantheory is so fond of as it is the basis of his scientific philosophy, then the simplest explanation is that he lied.

 

Just sayin...

[TheOutsider]

<snip>

Both Black Cat and BAA called it an invitation. Since I never got it I didn't know of it, or whether it existed or not. But if Black Cat says she sent me a PM or other invitation then you can be certain that it happened. Yes, I was already a member at the time. I was just introducing myself in the introduction forum. What is the importance now of this anyway, especially in this thread? Why bring up such a ridiculous accusation. This is BAA's big example of a lie? what a joke. Again I expect psychological problems -- not necessarily his fault -- but suggest that such people should not accuse others of such ridiculous things, thereby exposing their own problems.

 

It's important to figure out the truth of a situation, it seems like this has been an issue for a long time. There is a vast gulf between making a mistake without realizing it and psychological problems. You really aren't helping your own credibility with accusations like that.

 

While I don't think you lied about how you found these forums, I do find myself to be rather skeptical of your claims regarding the field of science.

I only pointed out that this could have been a big misunderstanding because I noticed the timeline, and I would have felt like a dishonest hypocrite if I didn't.

[pantheory]

Hi Forrest,

 

Thank you for your kind welcome back.

 

Just to clarify guys- I've forwarded the email I sent to Forrest way back on the 19th of February 2013 to BAA, so as to verify that it was the 19th, which is AFTER Forrest joined this forum.  Coincidences do happen it seems!  Forrest did not reply to that email.  Forrest, the email address I used to invite you here (I didn't know you were already a member)  is:  forrest_forrest@ netzero.net. 

 

Thanks BC. Have you been posting recently in other sub-forums here? I am older than you but my own mother had a type of kindness as you have, which I appreciate very much. I never learned aggression like some like to put out in this forum.  But I have seen it in other forums too where anyone who suggests possible problems with mainstream theory will get "attacked." Seems something like the way religious people fight back at those attacking their religion.

 

I now have figured out where to find the PM's, in doing so looks like I missed some interesting ones including your original one. Will be looking for you again in this forum, and thanks for clarifying that matter that seems, for some crazy reason, to have been an issue with BAA.

 

with best regards, Forrest

 

p.s. I now see you sent the invitation to my personal e-mail, cool and thanks. Sorry I never saw it. If so you can believe I would have answered it

[pantheory]

 

<snip>

Both Black Cat and BAA called it an invitation. Since I never got it I didn't know of it, or whether it existed or not. But if Black Cat says she sent me a PM or other invitation then you can be certain that it happened. Yes, I was already a member at the time. I was just introducing myself in the introduction forum. What is the importance now of this anyway, especially in this thread? Why bring up such a ridiculous accusation. This is BAA's big example of a lie? what a joke. Again I expect psychological problems -- not necessarily his fault -- but suggest that such people should not accuse others of such ridiculous things, thereby exposing their own problems.

 

It's important to figure out the truth of a situation, it seems like this has been an issue for a long time. There is a vast gulf between making a mistake without realizing it and psychological problems. You really aren't helping your own credibility with accusations like that.

 

While I don't think you lied about how you found these forums, I do find myself to be rather skeptical of your claims regarding the field of science.

I only pointed out that this could have been a big misunderstanding because I noticed the timeline, and I would have felt like a dishonest hypocrite if I didn't.

 

 

BAA thinks I have lied and I think for this and other reasons, that he has psychological problems. In his defense, lying is a matter of poor character, where most cannot help it concerning psychological problems. I know he's wrong about my lying, and I hope his problems are minor. The accusation is so trivial it's obvious that there's something wrong. Such talk and silly accusations only should happen in soap operas.  Why anyone would be interested in such trivia,  Jesus wants to know

That's enough of this silly stuff. I will next post on this thread when someone posts again on EmDrive. If you want to talk to me otherwise sensibly, PM me.

[BlackCat]

Hey Forrest, 

 

I've not been active on here for about two years.  I popped back on a few weeks ago but I've been mentally preparing myself for posting on here again.  When this matter popped up today, it's given me the push to start posting again. 

[TheOutsider]

 

 

<snip>

Both Black Cat and BAA called it an invitation. Since I never got it I didn't know of it, or whether it existed or not. But if Black Cat says she sent me a PM or other invitation then you can be certain that it happened. Yes, I was already a member at the time. I was just introducing myself in the introduction forum. What is the importance now of this anyway, especially in this thread? Why bring up such a ridiculous accusation. This is BAA's big example of a lie? what a joke. Again I expect psychological problems -- not necessarily his fault -- but suggest that such people should not accuse others of such ridiculous things, thereby exposing their own problems.

It's important to figure out the truth of a situation, it seems like this has been an issue for a long time. There is a vast gulf between making a mistake without realizing it and psychological problems. You really aren't helping your own credibility with accusations like that.

 

While I don't think you lied about how you found these forums, I do find myself to be rather skeptical of your claims regarding the field of science.

I only pointed out that this could have been a big misunderstanding because I noticed the timeline, and I would have felt like a dishonest hypocrite if I didn't.

 

 

BAA thinks I have lied and I think for this and other reasons, that he has psychological problems. In his defense, lying is a matter of poor character, where most cannot help it concerning psychological problems. I know he's wrong about my lying, and I hope his problems are minor. The accusation is so trivial it's obvious that there's something wrong. Such talk and silly accusations only should happen in soap operas. Again Jesus wants to know why anyone is interested in such trivia

That's enough of this silly stuff. I will next post on this thread when someone posts again on EmDrive. If you want to talk to me otherwise sensibly, PM me.

 

Then perhaps leave psychological diagnoses to professional doctors and not laymen only interacting in a forum on the internet?

[pantheory]

Hey Forrest, 

 

I've not been active on here for about two years.  I popped back on a few weeks ago but I've been mentally preparing myself for posting on here again.  When this matter popped up today, it's given me the push to start posting again. 

 

Looking forward to it.  It should be fun for you    no mental preparation required. From what I know these threads of rancor, like this one, are rare. I avoid them excepting when I'm embroiled in them like this one. 

 

talk to you later, your friend Forrest

[bornagainathiest]

Since I hold the truth to be more important than my ego, it now falls to me to do three things.

 

To post the e-mail Blackcat has sent me concerning the dates of Pantheory's joining of this forum and her invitation to him to do so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I'm forwarding you the email I sent to Forrest, so you can verify the date.  I hadn't realised that Forrest joined BEFORE I emailed him.  I don't recall ever receiving a reply to this email.  If I'd had a reply, I would have replied to that and it would show in my sent emails like this one.  I think this shows Forrest was not lying.  Maybe getting mixed up with pms and emails possibly?   

 
best wishes
 

From: 
To: forrest_forrest@netzero.net
Subject: Pan theory being discussed on 'exchristian.net'.
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:27:13 +0000

Hi Mr Noble

 

I had a couple of conversations with you a few years ago, back on the science forum where you were discussing the Big Bang with a chap called 'Diamond'.  My username was 'Charm'. 

A topic regarding the Big Bang not happening, cropped up on the main website I go on: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55376-the-big-bang-never-happened/page-2

I'm 'BlackCat' on there.   I thought you might be interested in comment 31 on page 2, as your theory is discussed there.  It would be great if you could join us to address the comments made by 'Bhim' or you could email me with a response which I could post.  That would be awesome. 

 

Best wishes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To apologize to Forrest Noble for saying that he lied about the circumstances of his joining this forum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To remind everyone reading this thread that there is another outstanding issue that needs resolving.  This...

 

Posted 14 May 2015 - 06:22 AM

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions. 

 

Would Pantheory care to justify his claim please?  

I would point out that his response to me (below) contained no justification, only speculation.  There also needs to be a clear resolution of the wording used.  What does the word, 'known' mean in the context of his assertion?  I've stressed that the proper criterion for a theory's acceptance in science is via confirmation of it's predictions.  But that need not be what was meant by Pantheory when he used the word 'known'.  Therefore clarification is needed.

 

Posted 14 May 2015 - 11:57 AM

bornagainathiest, on 14 May 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions. 

 

First you must know of a theories predictions before observations are made. If you become familiar with those predictions that are contrary to mainstream theory, then if such predictions are observed you might want to study the underlying alternative theory in greater detail and consider other predictions of the theory that are contrary to mainstream predictions. Predictions contrary to mainstream theory, if known and confirmed, would attract proponents to the new theory.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please justify and clarify your claim Pantheory.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

 

Since I hold the truth to be more important than my ego, it now falls to me to do three things.

 

To post the e-mail Blackcat has sent me concerning the dates of Pantheory's joining of this forum and her invitation to him to do so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I'm forwarding you the email I sent to Forrest, so you can verify the date.  I hadn't realised that Forrest joined BEFORE I emailed him.  I don't recall ever receiving a reply to this email.  If I'd had a reply, I would have replied to that and it would show in my sent emails like this one.  I think this shows Forrest was not lying.  Maybe getting mixed up with pms and emails possibly?   

 

best wishes

 

From: 

To: 

forrest_forrest@netzero.net

Subject: Pan theory being discussed on 'exchristian.net'.

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:27:13 +0000

 

Hi Mr Noble

 

I had a couple of conversations with you a few years ago, back on the science forum where you were discussing the Big Bang with a chap called 'Diamond'.  My username was 'Charm'. 

A topic regarding the Big Bang not happening, cropped up on the main website I go on: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55376-the-big-bang-never-happened/page-2

I'm 'BlackCat' on there.   I thought you might be interested in comment 31 on page 2, as your theory is discussed there.  It would be great if you could join us to address the comments made by 'Bhim' or you could email me with a response which I could post.  That would be awesome. 

 

Best wishes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To apologize to Forrest Noble for saying that he lied about the circumstances of his joining this forum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To remind everyone reading this thread that there is another outstanding issue that needs resolving.  This...

 

Posted 14 May 2015 - 06:22 AM

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions. 

 

Would Pantheory care to justify his claim please?  

I would point out that his response to me (below) contained no justification, only speculation.  There also needs to be a clear resolution of the wording used.  What does the word, 'known' mean in the context of his assertion?  I've stressed that the proper criterion for a theory's acceptance in science is via confirmation of it's predictions.  But that need not be what was meant by Pantheory when he used the word 'known'.  Therefore clarification is needed.

 

Posted 14 May 2015 - 11:57 AM

bornagainathiest, on 14 May 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

 

In post # 137, Pantheory wrote...

"The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion."

This is a signal example of why I do not trust you, Pantheory.

You make blatantly false assertions to us.

The only proper way theories should become accepted in science is by the confirmation of their predictions. 

 

First you must know of a theories predictions before observations are made. If you become familiar with those predictions that are contrary to mainstream theory, then if such predictions are observed you might want to study the underlying alternative theory in greater detail and consider other predictions of the theory that are contrary to mainstream predictions. Predictions contrary to mainstream theory, if known and confirmed, would attract proponents to the new theory.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please justify and clarify your claim Pantheory.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

All your imaginations of me lying have been just that. Please try to stay on topic. The topic is EmDrive.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok then.

 

How did the theory behind the EMDrive become known?

 

Please specify the mechanism involved.

[pantheory]

Ok then.

 

How did the theory behind the EMDrive become known?

 

Please specify the mechanism involved.

 

I hope you  are honestly looking for answers instead of just looking for something else to argue about, trip me up,  or make negative accusations.

 

No theory behind EmDrive has ever been accepted as a consensus. Most believe that no theory explains the mechanics of EmDrive.

 

Various hypotheses and theories have been proposed explaining the underlying physics for how the EmDrive and related designs might be producing thrust. Shawyer claims that thrust is caused by a radiation pressure imbalance between the two faces of the cavity caused by the action of group velocity in different frames of reference within the framework of special relativity. Yang from NWPU calculated the net force/thrust using classical electromagnetism. Harold G. "Sonny" White, who investigates field propulsion at Eagleworks, NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory, speculated that such resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that could realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamic forces acting upon quantum vacuum flucuations. Likewise, the paper describing the Eagleworks test of the Cannae drive referred to a possible interaction with a so-called "quantum vacuum virtual plasma". This reference has been criticized by mathematical physicists John Baez and Sean M. Carroll because in the standard description of vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles do not behave as a plasma.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive        (you may not want to totally trust this wiki link since I contributed to some of its content and wordings)

 

My own hypothesis concerning how EmDrive works is somewhat related to the idea of the generated microwaves "interacting with the so-called quantum vacuum virtual plasma". If anyone is interested in further explanations concerning my hypothesis of the related mechanics concerning how EmDrive might work, I will be glad to explain it in great detail.

[mymistake]

 

 

All your imaginations of me lying have been just that. 

 

 

That isn't true.  You created a problem and now you blame everyone else for your problem.

 

 

Please try to stay on topic. The topic is EmDrive.

 

Bashing science is off topic.  If you would kindly not bash science so much that would be great.

 

This is super simple stuff!

[Thought2Much]

While I will retract my accusation against pantheory for lying to us, I will not apologize for it.

 

All it would have taken to clear up that misunderstanding was a sentence or two from pantheory when the first questions about why he was here were asked. You know, like a normal person that doesn't have some sort of ulterior motive would do.

 

His total lack of transparency on the matter has had the same practical effect as a direct lie.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Ok then.

 

How did the theory behind the EMDrive become known?

 

Please specify the mechanism involved.

 

I hope you  are honestly looking for answers instead of just looking for something else to argue about, trip me up,  or make negative accusations.

 

Since you cannot know if I'm being honest or not Pantheory, when I say that I am, you are obliged to take that on faith and trust. (Or not.)

Just as when we cannot know if you are being honest or not, we are obliged to take what you write on faith and trust.  (Or not.)

 

This impasse neatly illustrates the problem that some of us have with what you write and the claims you make.

It's our understanding that faith and trust play no part in the scientific method and also play no part in the procedures and protocols which are used to confirm or rule out the predictions made by a certain theory.

 

If we are wrong and faith and trust do play a role in science, then please explain this to us.  We would like to learn about and understand their role in science.

 

No theory behind EmDrive has ever been accepted as a consensus. Most believe that no theory explains the mechanics of EmDrive.

 

Is consensus of opinion the correct scientific criterion for the acceptance or rejection of a theory?

Most (scientists, presumably?) believe that no theory explains the mechanics of the EmDrive?

So belief does play a role in a theory's acceptance or rejection?

And is belief something exclusively for scientists or can we non-scientists employ it too?

 

So could you please explain to us how this all works?

We were under the impression that consensus of opinion, belief,  faith and trust played no role in the acceptance or rejection of a theory. Even though no specific theory has currently been accepted regarding the EmDrive, could you please explain to us how we should properly employ our faith, trust and belief - for the time when a theory is accepted for it. 

 

Various hypotheses and theories have been proposed explaining the underlying physics for how the EmDrive and related designs might be producing thrust. Shawyer claims that thrust is caused by a radiation pressure imbalance between the two faces of the cavity caused by the action of group velocity in different frames of reference within the framework of special relativity. Yang from NWPU calculated the net force/thrust using classical electromagnetism. Harold G. "Sonny" White, who investigates field propulsion at Eagleworks, NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory, speculated that such resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that could realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamic forces acting upon quantum vacuum flucuations. Likewise, the paper describing the Eagleworks test of the Cannae drive referred to a possible interaction with a so-called "quantum vacuum virtual plasma". This reference has been criticized by mathematical physicists John Baez and Sean M. Carroll because in the standard description of vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles do not behave as a plasma.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive        (you may not want to totally trust this wiki link since I contributed to some of its content and wordings)

 

My own hypothesis concerning how EmDrive works is somewhat related to the idea of the generated microwaves "interacting with the so-called quantum vacuum virtual plasma". If anyone is interested in further explanations concerning my hypothesis of the related mechanics concerning how EmDrive might work, I will be glad to explain it in great detail.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

Some good points

 

Is consensus of opinion the correct scientific criterion for the acceptance or rejection of a theory?

 

In my view a consensus is required for a theory to be generally accepted. As you remember from history, in the 1960's there were about an equal amount of scientists that believed the BB theory was valid (mostly in U.S), and about the same amount of astronomers and theorists that believed the Steady State theory was valid (mostly in England and Europe). After some time and interpretations of new observations were accepted by a consensus, the tide turned and the majority of astronomers and theorists began to favor the BB model. Today maybe 98 of 100 theorists favor the BB model over all other models combined. Majority rules is not related to science but it does involve what projects scientists work on.

 

Most (scientists, presumably?) believe that no theory explains the mechanics of the EmDrive?

So belief does play a role in a theory's acceptance or rejection?

 

IMO EmDrive is an exception. Most scientists believe that no known theory can explain EmDrive. Many still believe that EmDrive will be proven wrong and that the idea does not work. The operation of EmDrive is not just a difference of opinion, most also believe that EmDrive, if it works, would contradict classical mechanics concerning the conservation of momentum. Yes, belief in the validity of a theory is all important in its acceptance or rejection by the individual scientist.

 

And is belief something exclusively for scientists or can we non-scientists employ it too? So could you please explain to us how this all works?

 

IMO scientists do not like to acknowledge that belief has anything to do with science. But IMO each scientist must decide whether he believes in the project/ theory that he must work on. Sometimes scientists do not believe in the project or theory he is working on, but he must do so to keep his job. This is generally a rarity. Non-scientist too must ultimately decide, in the same way, if they choose to believe in this or that theory, or be more consistent with the scientific method, which is more a position of doubt concerning all theories that do not make sense to the individual. As Rene Decarte said : Doubt everything to start with.

 

We were under the impression that consensus of opinion, belief,  faith and trust played no role in the acceptance or rejection of a theory. Even though no specific theory has currently been accepted regarding the EmDrive, could you please explain to us how we should properly employ our faith, trust and belief - for the time when a theory is accepted for it.

 

IMO belief is different from faith and trust in science. One may believe that this or that theory is correct, but in science this does not mean that you necessarily should have faith or trust (like a religion) in the theory or its related conclusions. One should always be leery of interpretations and conclusions in science but that depends upon the individual, of course, whether scientist or not.

 

I can imagine that for some who once had a strong belief in religion, that belief, faith, and trust, might be difficult to separate from each other.

 

Well, that's my opinion concerning your questions.

[bornagainathiest]

Ah now this illustrates why I cannot trust you Pantheory and why I consider you to be a harmful influence in this forum.

 

In my view a consensus is required for a theory to be generally accepted. As you remember from history, in the 1960's there were about an equal amount of scientists that believed the BB theory was valid (mostly in U.S), and about the same amount of astronomers and theorists that believed the Steady State theory was valid (mostly in England and Europe). After some time and interpretations of new observations were accepted by a consensus, the tide turned and the majority of astronomers and theorists began to favor the BB model. Today maybe 98 of 100 theorists favor the BB model over all other models combined. Majority rules is not related to science but it does involve what projects scientists work on.

 

I happen to know something of astronomical history of this period, particularly that pertaining to cosmology.

What you've given me here is the alternative cosmology spin on the events of that period.  What you haven't given me is the accepted historical account of these events.  The above is your take on what the history is - not what the history actually is.

 

If I were to ask the same question of Bhim or the RogueScholar, they would give me a very different account of these events.  An account that would show that the issue of which theory was correct (Big Bang or Steady State) was resolved by the evidence and not by such unscientific things as belief and consensus of opinion. 

 

It seems that I cannot trust you to give me any kind of explanation or account of anything in science that isn't filtered thru your personal belief system.

 

And if a member without my knowledge had asked you this question, they would have been totally mislead by you.

 

I just cannot trust you!

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Ah now this illustrates why I cannot trust you Pantheory and why I consider you to be a harmful influence in this forum.

 

In my view a consensus is required for a theory to be generally accepted. As you remember from history, in the 1960's there were about an equal amount of scientists that believed the BB theory was valid (mostly in U.S), and about the same amount of astronomers and theorists that believed the Steady State theory was valid (mostly in England and Europe). After some time and interpretations of new observations were accepted by a consensus, the tide turned and the majority of astronomers and theorists began to favor the BB model. Today maybe 98 of 100 theorists favor the BB model over all other models combined. Majority rules is not related to science but it does involve what projects scientists work on.

 

I happen to know something of astronomical history of this period, particularly that pertaining to cosmology.

What you've given me here is the alternative cosmology spin on the events of that period.  What you haven't given me is the accepted historical account of these events.  The above is your take on what the history is - not what the history actually is.

 

If I were to ask the same question of Bhim or the RogueScholar, they would give me a very different account of these events.  An account that would show that the issue of which theory was correct (Big Bang or Steady State) was resolved by the evidence and not by such unscientific things as belief and consensus of opinion. 

 

It seems that I cannot trust you to give me any kind of explanation or account of anything in science that isn't filtered thru your personal belief system.

 

And if a member without my knowledge had asked you this question, they would have been totally mislead by you.

 

I just cannot trust you!

 

Trust should have nothing to do with it. As I said many times in my posting, this is my opinion. You should trust no ones opinion. Once one thinks he has enough information he develops his own opinion, as I have done and you have done. Ask someone else about their opinion and you probably will get a different opinion for each person asked. Look up the consensus opinion if there is such a thing concerning history. As has been explained by many historians,  history is written by the victors (the victor's perspective). Those that think otherwise, I believe, are naive. I lived through this entire period so I don't have to read history or read anyone's opinion to have knowledge concerning what happened.

 

If someone says this is their opinion, that is exactly what it is. Anyone can believe whatever source they like concerning any subject, but trust should have nothing to do with it  IMO. 

[Ravenstar]

Ridiculous.  All of it.

 

If you have a problem with current scientific theories then why the hell are you here, rather than at the blackboard, or the lab…. doing the WORK needed to support your hypothesis?

 

I don't buy it… and the time wasted by you arguing (here of all places) for your pet ideas is ample evidence that you really are just a dilettante with a narcisstic issue and a persecution complex rather than a serious scientist with valid concerns.

 

Go away, but… come back when you actually have some science to show us.